As EU leaders converge upon Brussels for an emergency summit on a second bailout of Greece later today, Finance Minister Tonio Fenech rebutted opposition allegations that government was not transparent with regard to the Greek issue.

Winding up a debate re-quested by the opposition on the situation in the eurozone, Mr Fenech said it was Parliament that had unanimously approved that Malta contributes to bail out countries like Greece, Ireland and Portugal and both the Prime Minister and himself reported to the House after summits and Ecofin committees.

On the other hand, he agreed with the opposition that Malta should not become like Greece but the opposition should help the government by not undermining its work. This could be done if the opposition viewed certain measures, such as utility bills, in their proper context, he said.

Referring to the Council of Ministers and other European committees, Minister Fenech said government had at times objected to certain developments and it was not true Malta had no say.

Mr Fenech said Malta’s exposure amounted to €54 million and not the figures mentioned by the opposition. Loans to Greece were being made in tranches and Malta had to be satisfied by the progress made by that country before it made its next advance.

By the commitment undertaken through tranches and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism (EFSM) – an emergency funding programme reliant upon funds raised on the financial markets and guaranteed by the European Commission using the budget of the European Union as collateral – Malta’s exposure could rise to €800 million.

However, the loan to Greece, till now, amounted to €36 million. No more money would be given before the government was certain the Greek government was implementing the IMF-EU-imposed austerity measures.

Then there was the second exposure coming from the EFSM. The guarantee given to Ireland amounted to €6.5 million and that to Portugal to €11.8 million. These amounts were contained and in reality the exposure was €54 million.

The only concern Malta had was with regard the notion of the EFSM operating as a market marker on the secondary market. This was because one had yet to see whether Malta would be exposed to other guarantees. Discussions were ongoing and all possible methods to mitigate exposure would be implemented.

With regard to the 60 per cent GDP allowance there should not be any problems, because although the loan taken by the Maltese government to help Greece was to be inserted in the annual record its nature would be taken into consideration. It did not make sense that a country helped another but then get penalised by the EU especially when loans to Greece were offered out of necessity.

Moreover, the minister said he agreed with opposition finance spokesman Karmenu Vella that it was not enough merely to address the deficit; one had to give Greece the opportunity to improve its position. This was the reason for the second package.

It was not true that the austerity programme did not have an economic side to it. No government had accepted the second package as yet and it was not true the Maltese government was already committed. The decision at European level was that all countries should stand by to help.

With regard to the issue of private sector involvement, Mr Fenech said the initial idea was that these should come in three years’ time.

Nevertheless upon Greece’s second request for bail out, some countries thought it better to having private sector involvement now rather than later, the argument being that it was not fair that countries alone had to carry the burden.

He said he could not give any feedback to the House on this issue since no decision had as yet been reached.

With regard to euro bonds, the minister said Malta was in favour as it was a better mechanism where the burden would be shared by triple A rating countries, which Malta was not.

There were some who stated that the euro problems lied in not having fiscal rules and plans but they only share principles.

Referring to the US government’s deficit spending and raising the debt ceiling, Mr Fenech said this was greater even though the US was a fiscal union. The US was also being down-rated by credit agencies. If the debt was great, problems would persist. The solution lied in how to address the problem. As a small country, Malta does not favour a fiscal union because it was not in its interests. Malta had taken dissenting positions in this respect.

The minister did not agree that the European six-packs were a one-size-fits-all programme.

Mr Fenech referred to what Dr Sant had said about a report by the Freiburg Centre for European Policy which had concluded that Malta, Cyprus and Greece faced the worst situation. He said Germany and Malta were the only two countries that increased their competitiveness. Malta suffered from the fact that it was the southernmost country, surrounded by ailing countries and, therefore, it was easy for economists to put it in the same basket.

Mr Fenech denied that Malta had adopted the euro too early and said the European currency had been a major boost for the economy. It had also helped Malta weather the global financial crisis far better than having a local currency whose value was based on a formula based on a basket of currencies.

Earlier, Charles Mangion, opposition economic affairs spokesman, said that if matters deteriorated, the loans and guarantees Malta had given would cost the island some €40 million a year. Parliament, he said, needed to be fully informed of the liabilities Malta had and how they could impact on the economy.

The prevailing crisis was the result of people hiding reality.

Turning to the local scene, Dr Mangion said many public projects were late on completion dates and had overruns of several thousands of euros. It was high time government faced the challenges without leaving negative impacts.

The Greek bailout was not productive investment even if the government was borrowing locally.

One had to see whether such loans would be detrimental insofar as limiting possible future investments.

The opposition was for helping others but the country had to take care of its own interests first.

The House stands adjourned till Monday morning when it is expected to approve in committee stage the Civil Code (Amendment) Bill, providing for the introduction of divorce.